Sentences with phrase «then make an argument»

Root feminine identity in the curse rather than the redemptive work of Christ and then make the argument that because the ancient Near Eastern woman of Proverbs 31 is not described as consulting with the elders, then all women everywhere for all of time are restricted to the realm of the home and therefore responsible for the laundry.

Then make the argument.

Bringing up the moral issue then makes the argument even stronger (rhetorically).

If there is any way you can argue that the Qatar Airways flights BA is offering to accommodate you on don't give you enough time to connect then make that argument and try to get booked on QR8 / QR7 where you'll have the joys of the Qatar Airways Qsuite.

We then make arguments why the choices we have made are eminently logical and true.

Not exact matches

If Trump wants to argue that U.S. - Mexico trade relations have been lousy for the better part of three decades, then that's an argument he's free to make.

It's Carlota Perez's argument that technology is adopted on an S curve: the installation phase, the crash — because the technology isn't ready yet — and then the deployment phase, when technology gets adopted by everyone and the real money gets made.»

But if they're already using - or more likely under - using - Office 365, then Microsoft is going to make a very compelling argument to do just that in the future.

But the argument that can't be made is that if you believe the failure to internalize environmental costs is a subsidy (or a defacto subsidy), then the failure to do so effects other industries inclding via our currency.

Yeah, but the opposite argument that I hear people making is that if they allow their currency to rise and their purchasing power increases, then they won't need all that investment in the US because they can rely on their own citizens to take the role of consumers.

If you make assumptions about why demand for loans is slack among small businesses and then treat that as a fact which underpins your whole argument, it makes it difficult to treat this as anything beyond opinion.

So it's not only longer than the bonds we were issuing then but the argument, «well, it's not really that much longer than this bond is,» is perhaps that extrapolation that makes me a little bit nervous, that there is too much complacency.

«Certainly, the argument that the government will make is that the $ 130,000 payment from Michael Cohen to Daniels was a loan to the Trump campaign to keep these allegations secret obviously and then Trump paying Cohen back would be a campaign expenditure» — a loan and expenditure that should have been disclosed to the Federal Election Commission, he said.

You might want to re-read what Ted M. initially posted, and then your responses... to me at least... what you wrote was not an isomorphic argument that in any way refuted Ted's, and i think - Ace made reference to that as well as - Ted.

If you are clinging to that argument, then you need to study before making yourself look ignorant.

If there are no such lines in the bible (there aren't) then you have absolutely no argument to make.

When some asshat like you, just sayin, HeavenSent, Bob, etc. make blanket statements and refuse to respond to corrections, criticisms, or valid points refuting those statements, then there is no point in bringing up any kind of argument.

If you're going to make the stupid argument that the term «belief» means the same thing whether it's applied to a god or the sun coming up, then argue with someone else.

This was made in Holy Spirit Baptism and Hoekema then proceeded to utilize Warfield as part of his argument.

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

So then it becomes about who is the most powerful or makes the most persuasive argument.

Start with the science that shows the humanity and individuality of the embryo, and then make philosophical arguments about the equality of all human beings as persons possessing inherent dignity.

If you claim the methodology of neutralizing potentially confounding variables limits possibilities to that of the natural then you also make an argument for the supernatural never to be observed by science due to it's methodology.

I'm sorry but you're not making an argument to counter his, you have no references or citations to back up such a claim and so you revert to attacking this man by calling him gay??? really, you think your the world authority on the bible when then you start casting stones left and right and attacking your fellow man?

Do your rallying where it does the most good and for God sake, make your arguments about more then «so and so wants us to be poor» and «so and so just wants to be rich».

If what you're trying to use here is the ad hominem fallacy - attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument - then the only people you'll convince with this tactic are those who haven't learned to think critically.

If as you say, «two wrongs [don't] make a right argument» then why not debate @Blarg's statement instead of inciting atheists condemnation of his / her arguments by indirectly making a blanket statement about how Atheist should be offended?

The speaker in the cartoon is assuming that if homsexuals are made so by environmental factors, then all humans must be born neutral and their sexuality, in either direction, is shaped by the environment; when in fact one could also argue (and I believe the argument actually is) that humans are born hetero by default and shifted to homosexuality be environmental factors.

I have learned that 99 % of what's posted is just unoriginal arguments recycled over and over again, but every now and then I read something that makes me think.

If he thinks that «disrespect» towards his stupid argument somehow magically makes him correct, then it's just more stupidity he beleives that we can't waste our time worrying about.

If you accept that as your basic premise, then arguments for God's existence will obviously make sense to you because they just confirm what you al; ready believe to be true.

If his thesis is built around his interpretation of that verse then it is going to be difficult to sell the idea unless he makes a convincing argument against John 16:32 and Psalm 22, for me at least.

Here is what I do nt get about either side... they make an argument for something, but then are completely unable to apply it to other scenarios.

It seems that maybe what John, Peter, James, and Jude did was go to a professionally trained letter writer and provided them with the basic ideas, arguments, and points they wanted to make in their letter, and then let the professional letter writer compose the letter according to the letter writing standards of that day.

Christians, then, should make their arguments carefully, winsomely, graciously, and firmly, in the hope that «the law written on the heart» will overcome emotional prejudice, intellectual laziness, and moral compromise.

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

What to make then of Marsden's argument (or, alternatively, the neo-Thomist argument) that a Christian perspective should make a difference in scholarly results?

If I'm presented with an argument that is valid and makes sense then I will change my mind.

I will be happy to calmy and rationally debate you as long as you would like, but if you think I simply don't understand your argument because I don't agree with it, then you've made a poor deduction.

I was making the argument that if the believers was just a poodle, then the worst would be a mess on the rug.

There is at least one: since being is power, every being has some power just by virtue of being; but then it is metaphysically impossible that God should have all the power.20 Or to make this an internal argument against the classical doctrine, the conclusion could be softened to read: «If there is anything other than God, God does not have all the power there is.»

But then you make an extended argument for the opposite position, ending with this clincher: «If you are going to be Red - Letter Christians, it is important for you to recognize that there is no record in the New Testament of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality.»

If you are going to attempt to make the case that homosexual marriage deprives adopted children of the knowledge of their biological parents... then you must be prepared to follow the argument to its conclusion.

However, if the argument is made that alternative orientation is nature's response to overpopulation, then 1) we'd need to see results from that, and 2) those results would point to either an increase or decrease.

And if you stand on either side of the theological debate, then you should be aware of his arguments for the existence of God before you make any stance that is antagonistic to the existence of God.

Well, FAITH, there's the problem... that gibberish in the bible was just made up by «some guy» to keep the peasants behaving in a manner that whomever wrote it thought was a good way to behave... some of those guys were wise, yes, and there are benefits to following some of the «guidelines» set forth in the Bible... but it's a circular argument to use the Bible as a reason to have faith, because you have to first BELIEVE in the deity, THEN believe that the deity inspired the writings, THEN you can take the writings as «truth»... I'm two steps back, not believing in the deity at all (Yay, Atheists!

Tellingly, Dawkins makes the same mistake as his opponents in assuming that when design loses its explanatory purchase on evolutionary biology, then all arguments from order have thereby also been automatically dispatched.

To this end his favorite device is to picture a cosmic assize in which Yahweh is at once plaintiff and judge; he advances his arguments and introduces his witnesses and then challenges the defendants to make out their case.

You then made a «hard» left turn in your argument to suggest that not only do Muslim's «meditate» 5 times per day, but that also = reading the Qur «an = book of horror and terror.

If I may: I think bob is suggesting you are being dishonest in your argument when you said he said he KNOWS God doesn't exist, and then you proceed to challenge this assertion he didn't make (which is the straw man).